[Rammstein]

ICP_Juggalo, I disagree.

I think that if it takes a unanimous vote for conviction then the same should apply to the taking of a life. Taking a life is a much bigger step then simply depriving someone of their liberty. Taking a life is the final and irreversible step. There should be no doubt that the person should be put to death.

I disagree that he should be put through the same thing that he did to his victims. There is no doubt that he deserves that or worse, but America is a nation of laws. And if our Constitution is to mean anything then we cannot do that. If we disregard the Eight Amendment how can we possibly defend the Second?

 

[gunsbillygun]

ICP, I'm with yaw on this one,
if the person is found without a doubt guilty, have the cameras set up and sell the tickets ,were going to a hagen, no if , ands, or butts
right here right now gallows in the back,this way punk :evil:

 

[Macktee]

Once again I find myself conflicted.

In the case cited and explained so well by SigmanSauer, I find myself in full agreement with him and MP. That animal should be killed slowly and painfully. Very damn slowly and very, very damn painfully!!! I'd even volunteer to help.

Yet, I also agree with Ramm that the death penalty probably should be done away with. There's always the possibility of killing an innocent person. After 20 years, a guy convicted of rape is freed. Great. But, a guy convicted of murder and put to death can't be freed because he's dead.

So, I think the best solution is to just lock his ass up in solitary until he dies of old age or boredom or something.

Like I said. I'm conflicted on this. And a lot of other things...

A LOT of other things!

.

 

[ICP_Juggalo]

I guess we are going have to agree to disagree.

Once some one has been convicted of such a crime, then they have forfeited their liberty IMHO. I don't worry about the wrong person being put to death either. The perp is likely to sit 20 - 30 years in prison before even being put to death in this country, which is more than ample time to build up an appeal and obtain evidence to help proclaim their innocence.

 

[Rammstein]

Yet, I also agree with Ramm that the death penalty probably should be done away with.

Just to clarify, I support the death penalty.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I think that if it takes a unanimous vote for conviction then the same should apply to the taking of a life.

Rammstein, I agree with the unanimous vote, but, like I said, there should be NO vote for the guilt phase. Even in Gunsmoker's hypothetical, I would impose the death penalty. Murder is murder and it deserves nothing less.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that it is written somewhere in the Constitution (I can't find it! ) that certain kinds of murder are not death penalty eligible (those without "aggravating circumstances), then we must have this bifurcated guilt/punishment trial. It is a travesty of justice.

I agree with this bill because this penalty phase has been forced upon the nation as some sort of Constitutional requirement, in spite of its absolute absence from the text of the Constitution.

If we disregard the Eight Amendment how can we possibly defend the Second?

Does the Second Amendment mean what the Founders thought or what Michael Bellesiles is now selling? If your answer is the former, you ought to go read a little about what the Founders tolerated as punishment without declaring the punishment "cruel and unusual."

I really do not think you could have found a full grown man in the 1700s who would have thought shooting someone in the chest as punishment for child-killing was some sort of Eighth Amendment violation.

 

[Rammstein]

MP,
Unintentional homicide does not deserve the death penalty.

Please...you really believe that torture is not cruel and unusual punishment? Because that is what shooting someone in the chest and watching them as they gasp for air that their lungs can't retain, then at the moment before they loose consciousness putting a round through their head; that is torture.

The application of punishment in this county is not about revenge.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

MP,
Unintentional homicide does not deserve the death penalty.

Unintentional homicide is not murder.

I am not talking about manslaughter or negligent homicide. I am talking about murder.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The application of punishment in this county is not about revenge.

I do not have a problem with retribution being one aspect of justification for the death penalty. It does not bother me even slightly.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Please...you really believe that torture is not cruel and unusual punishment? Because that is what shooting someone in the chest and watching them as they gasp for air that their lungs can't retain, then at the moment before they loose consciousness putting a round through their head; that is torture.

Death by firing squad has historically been performed by shooting the torso.

I am not really bothered if the murderer does a little "gasping." :roll:

I prefer firing squad as the method of execution, but this has not been done since Gilmore in what, 1976?, and even though Utah has it still on the books it is unlikely that it will ever be used again because people in this country are becoming more feminized with each passing year.

:wink:

 

[Rammstein]

Please...you really believe that torture is not cruel and unusual punishment? Because that is what shooting someone in the chest and watching them as they gasp for air that their lungs can't retain, then at the moment before they loose consciousness putting a round through their head; that is torture.

Death by firing squad has historically been performed by shooting the torso.

I am not really bothered if the murderer does a little "gasping." :roll:

I prefer firing squad as the method of execution, but this has not been done since Gilmore in what, 1976?, and even though Utah has it still on the books it is unlikely that it will ever be used again because people in this country are becoming more feminized with each passing year.

:wink:

What you were talking about was not a firing squad. You were talking about torture.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

As far as I am concerned we do not have a death penalty in this country. Waiting 20 -30 years on death row is no death penalty. In the 70's I lived in Turkey and Iran for over 5 years when my dad was stationed with the Air Force. Now those folks know how to enforce a death penalty. Believe me, I know. Their prisons were prisons. Life expectancy in there prisons was less than 3 years. Graveyards were right next door. Business was brisk. They did not have to feed you, give you water or medical care. Ever heard of the expression "lock you up and throw away the key?". Well, it wasn't an expression here. I know of folks that were beaten by the secret police in broad daylight in town. You didn't dare interfere or ask questions or you were next. I was always very weary of being framed especially when we went off base.

I could tell more stories that you would not believe. But suffice to say our death row inmates have it good here in the USA.

 

[gunsmoker]

Secret Police Torture

Ga..Glocker and Ramm have a point. Any government that is powerful enough to kill its own citizens publicly can be powerful enough to abuse that power and intimidate people, suppress rights, and generally be disrespectful of liberty. It DOES appear to be the case that in the world today (over the last 40 years or so) most modern western nations have ended capital punishment, while backwards little dictatorships and third-world barbaric kingdoms and communist countries have continued using it. Must it be this way?

Is that why so many people oppose the death penalty? Not because of the death penalty itself, but because they just don't trust the government with that kind of power? That it's a sign of worse things to come-- thought police, secret tribunals, re-education camps, etc?

I don't know about you guys, but I oppose most gun control schemes mainly because of the slippery slope argument. Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile. If you infringe on the Second Amendment today, you're giving the green light to infringe on all the rest of the Bill of Rights later.

Consider this: If you give the government enough power that it can prevent crime, so that nobody will want to do anything that is against the law because they'll either be intercepted before they can complete the crime successfully or they'll surely be caught and strictly & swiftly punished, we wouldn't need all the laws we have on the books that exist only to bolster other laws and help the State enforce them.

We don't have laws against smoking marijuana because of that act itself. It's the act of DUI while high that we fear, and burglary done for the purpose of getting money to buy more dope, and one pot dealer ordering a "hit" on a rival pot dealer in his territory...

We don't have laws against carrying guns because there's anything wrong with such conduct. But our society says that guns have to be restricted in order to interfere with the use of guns in robbery and murder. Now if robbery and murder were effectively suppressed, would we still need gun control?

But what are the odds that any government powerful enough to suppress real crime would repeal its laws on precursor crimes -- the malum prohibitum laws where there is no victim and no harm to society, but where it just appears that you might be headed in the wrong direction socially? Occasionally it happens. Our country only ended the prohibition of alcohol AFTER President Roosevent had basically tripled the size and power of the federal government, and built-up new federal police agencies (the F.B.I.) that took over much of the work of crime control from state agencies.

 

[gunsmoker]

Today's AJC

Today's AJC has an article about how the City of Lilburn (in Gwinnett County) has banned karoke, darts, billiards, and trivia from anyplace that serves alcohol. Why? To end the consumption of alcohol at places other than restaurants. They're passing laws against singing NOT because there's anything wrong with singing, but only because singing and drinking go well together, and drinking is what they really want to ban.

No, wait. The police chief says drinking isn't really the target either. He enjoys a beer as much as the next guy. It's "crime" that he wants to get rid of. So with no singing, bars will close and the beer will stop flowing, and people's cars won't get stolen and nobody will get shot.

Gee, I guess there's no way to enforce the laws against assault and robbery unless we stop people from congregating and mixing outside of church. Can we ban public gatherings-- with the only exception being in a registered house of God?

 

[Taler]

Think of the potential impact of a burgeoning new market in sacramental wine.

I wonder whether the braintrusts in Lilburn have considered that?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Re: Secret Police Torture

Ga..Glocker and Ramm have a point. Any government that is powerful enough to kill its own citizens publicly can be powerful enough to abuse that power and intimidate people, suppress rights, and generally be disrespectful of liberty. It DOES appear to be the case that in the world today (over the last 40 years or so) most modern western nations have ended capital punishment, while backwards little dictatorships and third-world barbaric kingdoms and communist countries have continued using it.

Well, gunsmoker, was this country freer for your average white male property owner in the 1700s or today?

And was the death penalty more or less common then?

Sometimes an apposite question that injects a little does of reality just shatters a well constructed argument into dust.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

I will give one example of what happened while I was there. When we were stationed at Incirlik AB in Turkey the main road leading to the main gate to the base was lined with local souvenir shops selling just about about anything you could think of. One shop in particular was operated by an elderly Turkish man and his two teenage sons. They sold vegetables and did alot of business with the american military as did the other shops. We past all these shops everyday coming and going from the base. One day we noticed the vegetable stand had been burnt to the ground. The secret police had come in beat the old man to death and put his two sons in prison and set the stand on fire. Come to find out that day that his sons had been selling hash on the side. For those of you that may not know what "hash" is, it is there form of "weed" but much stronger.

Now, would you call that justice?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Now, would you call that justice?

Who? Me?

No.

But I am not sure what this has to do with putting a child killer to death after a unanimous jury verdict of guilt, and a ten-two vote for death.

 

[rajl]

Rammstein,

From a practical standpoint, shooting someone in the chest and watching them gargle for breath is not cruel. A bullet to the chest, if it hits the aorta will end a man in less than 6 seconds, which is the amount of time it will take your heart to pump out enough blood to make you lose consciousness. This hardly a long, suffering, tortuous death.


Personally, I think too much time and effort is being spent on humane executions. Isn't an execution, by default, rather inhumane? So why bother trying to figure out if you're administering the right anesthetic dosage before you administer the lethal injection?

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

Now, would you call that justice?

Who? Me?

No.

But I am not sure what this has to do with putting a child killer to death after a unanimous jury verdict of guilt, and a ten-two vote for death.

MP, It really did not have anything to do with the case you cited. It was a general story related to capital punishment. My point was to show how a one foreign goverment carried out their capital punishment and how here in the U.S. we would find it totally outrageous.